When to use Perlbal
mrsalty0 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 30 18:19:26 UTC 2007
I've been running a series of comparisons between a number of load balancing
options for a client and it has raised a few basic questions in my mind.
Though our test methodology has been less then strict, my experience has
been that Perlbal tends to handle more connections per second (as a reverse
proxy for two backend IIS servers) then LVS and most of the hardware load
balancers we've tested. This is great, but I remember seeing in a couple of
places were people using Perlbal or similar products as reverse proxies will
place them behind a hardware balancer or LVS box. So I guess I have two
1. Is my experience normal? Does Perlbal usually outperform commercial
hardware load balancers?
2. If Perlbal is faster then a hardware device wouldn't it restrict
performance to place it behind one?
I realize that the hardware devices have HA features that Perlbal lacks but
wouldn't it make sense to add a heartbeat fail over mechanism to your pool
of Perlbals instead of placing them behind another load balancer?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the perlbal